An Uttar Pradesh court has directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against a Station House Officer (SHO) in his own police station, after finding that he had illegally detained a man for over two days and fabricated official records to justify the custody [State of UP v Sanjay Yadav].
Addressing the SHO’s conduct and the question of whether his actions were protected as part of official duty, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kasganj, Khan Zishan Masood made it clear that such protection would not apply in this case.
Rejecting any claim of immunity for the officer, the CJM held,
"None of the acts of the SHO fall within the purview of 'act done in discharge of duty'. Illegal detention without any authority of law and effecting false and fictitious GD entries cannot be said to be 'act done under discharge of duty.'"
The June 3 order came in a case arising from a complaint filed on behalf of Sanjay Yadav, who alleged that he had been picked up and kept at the police station from April 28, 2026, without due process and without being allowed to consult a lawyer.
The court examined CCTV footage from the police station, which showed Yadav sitting outside the lock-up continuously from April 28 afternoon to late night on April 29. The SHO later admitted that Yadav had remained at the station until April 30, but offered no satisfactory explanation.
The court noted that the offences invoked against Yadav included Sections 85 BNS (cruelty by husband or relatives), 115(2) BNS (voluntarily causing hurt), 352 BNS (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and 351(3) BNS (criminal intimidation).
These, the Court held, are of a nature where arrest is not ordinarily required. Such offences are considered less serious and typically punishable with lower terms of imprisonment, meaning the law requires police to first issue a notice for appearance under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Despite this, no notice was served. The court also recorded that Yadav’s right to meet his lawyer under Section 38 BNSS (right to legal consultation) had been denied.
Additionally, a General Diary (GD) entry recorded on April 30, claimed that Yadav had created a ruckus outside the police station. However, both the CCTV footage and a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kasganj, confirmed that Yadav was inside the police station at the time and that the GD entry was false and fabricated.
On the basis of the material on record, including the SHO’s explanation and the supervisory report, the court recorded a strong prima facie finding of criminality.
"This court is of the firm opinion that the SHO, Sahawar is prima facie guilty of the offence of illegal detention as well forgery," said the Court.
The CJM accordingly directed that an FIR be registered against SHO Govind Ballabh under Sections 127(2) BNS (wrongful confinement by public servant) and 336, 337 and 344 BNS (forgery-related offences).
A copy of the order has been sent to the Superintendent of Police for compliance, while a departmental inquiry against the officer is already underway.
Advocate Rajat Yadav appeared for Sanjay Yadav (accused).
[Read Order]